Comments (25)

The super committee was never designed to succeed in the first place. Both parties get to grandstand for political gain blaming the other party for nothing getting done. In the end, they don't have to make any tough decisions and automatic cuts kick in anyway.

Jack, like that is a shocker. No one in Washington, coming in to an election year, was / is going to make a tough decision.
On my way to Toronto yesterday, I was forced to watch "Meet the Press", both Senator's Kyl and Kerry from the Super Committee were guests. It took all my will power not to grab the barf bag and just puke. Sad, sad, sad from the whole lot, both D's and R's.
FWIW, how did we nominate Kerry in 2004? The man is an idiot. He makes W look like a genius.

A man driving in Washington DC rounds a corner and finding himself in the middle of a standstill traffic jam. As he sits there he sees a man walking down the line of cars talking to the drivers. When the man get to our occupant's car, the occupant rolls down the window and asks, "What's going on?"

The man replies, "Some terrorists have kidnapped congress and are threatening to dose the place and congressmen with gasoline and set them on fire unless a $100 million ransom is paid. We are going from car to car to take donations." The car owner asks, "What's the average donation been?" The man replies, "About a gallon."

But I wouldn't as shown by my appreciation for the Clackistan Rebellion that is inclusive and without any of the ideological extremes destroying this county.
IMO Clackistan should also be a lesson for the better elements of Occupy.

If they genuinely want an end to crony capitalism here's your golden local opportunity to prove it.

The totality of tyranny being inflicted upon the communities of Vancouver, Lake Oswego and Clackamas County by the worst of the worst crony cabal is an invitation yet to be acknowledged by the Occupy regular follks.

Why is that? Could their own ideological extremes be in their way? Of course.

I don't believe the system was supposed to work this way anyway. Tough decisions should be banged out in the crucible of debate and floor vote. If there's gridlock, so be it. Gridlock is decision-making by another means.

I think some view our constitution as some old document, not applicable anymore.

Those that don't adhere, should be ousted.
nearly vacant hallowed halls we would have, here's an idea:

Put a lock on the doors, those few good ones that remain in Congress, go to work and do a play back on when our country went astray...eliminate the abuses of our constitution, go back to founding fathers and meticulously review the laws and what led to the fix we are in now. For example, didn't it used to be that monopolies were not allowed, so how can it be that they have taken over. Our mainstream media for example has been completely monopolized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
Original textThe Sherman Act is divided into three sections. Section 1 delineates and prohibits specific means of anticompetitive conduct, while Section 2 deals with end results that are anticompetitive in nature. Thus, these sections supplement each other in an effort to prevent businesses from violating the spirit of the Act, while technically remaining within the letter of the law. Section 3 simply extends the provisions of Section 1 to U.S. territories and the District of Columbia.
Section 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."[15]
Section 2:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]"[16]
[edit] Subsequent legislation expanding its scope

The Clayton Antitrust Act, passed in 1914, proscribes certain additional activities that had been discovered to fall outside the scope of the Sherman Antitrust Act. For example, the Clayton Act added certain practices to the list of impermissible activities:
· price discrimination between different purchasers, if such discrimination tends to create a monopoly
· exclusive dealing agreements
· tying arrangements
· mergers and acquisitions that substantially reduce market competition.
The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 amended the Clayton Act. The amendment proscribed certain anticompetitive practices in which manufacturers engaged in price discrimination against equally-situated distributors.

Then there is NAFTA, doesn’t that need to be looked at and what happened to our country as a result?

I am not a constitutional expert by any means, perhaps there are constitutional scholars here who can point to all kinds of deviations of our laws and intent that have brought our country in my view down to its knees.

Then there is the matter of our dollar and the federal reserve. Am sure there are others here who know far more about all this than I do.

All I know is that when I was younger, I heard these terms being talked about, and now it seems the conversation has been eliminated in the circles of the mainstream press anyway and all these Acts, etc. my point is to streamline back to where we were on more secure footing.

Daunting it would be, unfortunately, as a scrambled egg, some matters would be difficult if not impossible to put back together. In some cases maybe only the shell has been broken. In my view, the "broken pieces" that could be fixed need to be in order to stop our downward spiral.

Allen I'm the 3rd person to address you. First you don't get to decide what what constitutes an answer. Second your Lame snarks says a lot about your lack of understanding the concept.

The Democrats contributed to the failure by insisting on more taxes. Simple. OK?
Stop borrowing and stop Spending. OK Democrats? OK Allen? That's called an answer. I'm sure its not the answer you want, pick away at it. Give me a failing grade. But that's MY answer. Speaking Volumes for you?

Do they? Mine doesn’t, it speaks to exactly what I meant. Yours is a meaningless question, especially in the context of really getting anything done.

It’s as if I hire a firm to give me a remodel design for my kitchen. They send a group of 12 folks to do it, I pay them to do it, and at the end they come out and say “We didn’t do it.”

Then your question expects me to analyze individuals. What did the women say? What did the men say? Did they divide along age lines? Are some of them drinkers, others tea-totalers and they couldn’t agree on how big my liquor cupboard should be? Tree-huggers versus corporate-killers, not to mention the closeted linoleum fetishest and stonemason dwarf, and they refused to compromise on the floor? All interesting questions, probably.

BUT NOT MY JOB!

I hired them to do the design! They said they would do that, and took up a lot of time doing it… supposedly. They are, again supposedly, experts at doing it. When they fail it’s irrelevant which individual failed, their firm (supposedly!) is set up to do designs.

The institution had a task, a task well within its area of expertise and ability. A task that it assures we who hire them that they can accomplish. Indeed, they are the only ones who can, because we little people can’t comprehend the complexities of their sausage making. It failed. To excuse the institution because “their guys” did it and “our guys” didn’t is what your question aims to do. Typical partisan diversion from the real issue, the dysfunction of the institution. Don’t get anything done, but never waste a good (crisis) opportunity to attack those you disagree with.

BTW, your original question should be followed by “And let the looting continue!” It’s what the net result of all the blather and inaction is.

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 80
At this date last year: 89
Total run in 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269